Howell v. Cataldi’s Empirical Analysis
464 F.2d 272 · 1972
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 24 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 177 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2020 · most notably Johnson v. Glick (1973), Singleton v. City of New York (1980)
60 federal appellate · 24 district · 5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 242 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Haines v. Kerner · Monroe v. Pape · Bell v. Hood · Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 177 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Although proof of specific intent to deprive a person of his federally protected rights is not required, there must be at least proof of the “condition usually demanded by the law for liability in an action of tort [which] is the existence of either wrongful intention or culpable negligence on the part of the defendant.” [Citation omitted.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““All that is required is proof that the conduct was intentional. There is no requirement of proof of a further objective toward which the conduct is directed. ‘While a specific intent to deprive a person of his constitutional rights is required under criminal sections . . ., neither specific intent nor purpose to deprive an individual of his civil rights is a prerequisite to civil liability under the civil provisions of the Civil Rights Act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““. . . The Act prescribes two elements as requisite for recovery: (1) the conduct complained of must have been done by some person acting under color of law; and (2) such conduct must have subjected the complainant to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States. . . . ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.